Patrick Mason on Mormon Stories

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

How about the idea that the BoM may be fiction, that JS inserted his own ideas into it, that while he may have thought he was translating plates he may not have been translating plates….How about BY sinning regarding race issues?   That one can reject D&C 132 and plural marriage, etc.  One might hold such ideas and I guess be faithful but that ain't the Mormonism I was taught nor are many of these thing taught now.

I don’t see Mason as being locked into any of those views from the way it is described.  If he was, that might be different as .I believe one can believe prophets make mistakes but still sustain them.  I hold that view myself.  It would depend on how he presented any ideas that drew a solid line requiring the BoM to be completely fiction or completely a creation of JS or reject all of 132 instead of having issues with how plural marriage was implemented.

I believe BY sinned on race issues myself by allowing his own bigotry to influence his interpretation of scripture.

I agree it isn’t what is typically viewed as traditional Mormonism, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong or unfaithful.  I expect a faith which rests on in part a pillar of continuing revelation would be fluid in development and not meant to always be the faith any of us were once taught.  To me a snapshot of belief at a particular time can never be what the Restored Gospel “is”, at least in mortality.

 

Edited October 1, 2022 by Calm

[Teancum]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t see Mason as being locked into any of those views from the way it is described.

I know you don't like Dehlin but I would recommend part 2 of the 3 part podcast. Then you can decide is he is locke in.  He seems pretty strong on a number of the points.

 

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

 If he was, that might be different as .I believe one can believe prophets make mistakes but still sustain them.  I hold that view myself.

There are varying level of mistakes. A major doctrinal mistake is a big deal. If BY really instituted the priesthood ban and that was not of God that is a BIG mistake  that took 140 years to fix.  His successors seemed oblivious.  If BY taught that Adam was God and is wrong well what good is a prophet that gets that  one wrong.  According to JS, it is the first principle of the gospel to know who God is and what His attributes are. 

If JS was wrong about plural marriage, if he sinned, if DC 132 is not scripture the Church has major problems since the doctrine of eternal marriage is all tied up with this "revelation."

 

These are BIG mistakes and have major impact. But I doubt the LDS authorities would agree with Mason and yes he was pretty adamant about some of these.

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

 It would depend on how he presented any ideas that drew a solid line requiring the BoM to be completely fiction or completely a creation of JS or reject all of 132 instead of having issues with how plural marriage was implemented.

He did not say the BoM is absolutely fiction but he is open to it and is not sure it is historical.  Parts of it he believes are not such as the tower of Babel, literal inclusions of the book of Genesis stories etc.

 

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

I believe BY sinned on race issues myself by allowing his own bigotry to influence his interpretation of scripture.

I agree it isn’t what is typically viewed as traditional Mormonism, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong or unfaithful.  I expect a faith which rests on in part a pillar of continuing revelation would be fluid in development and not meant to always be the faith any of us were once taught.  To me a snapshot of belief at a particular time can never be what the Restored Gospel “is”, at least in mortality.

 

Is it wrong if the authorities do not agree with it?  Who set doctrine?  You and Patrick can believe whatever you want. But it is a different Mormonism than is currently taught and it seems neo apologists need to be very nuanced in order to maintain their faith.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But it is a different Mormonism than is currently taught and it seems neo apologists need to be very nuanced in order to maintain their faith.

I am more concerned about aligning with the Restored Gospel than Mormonism and I don’t see any issues with nuances.  Everything has nuance, just many are left unspoken.

[Teancum]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am more concerned about aligning with the Restored Gospel than Mormonism

What is the difference?  Now you are just playing at semantics. So the things I noted that are BIG mistakes are not in line with what is taught by the authorites of the restored gospel's Church.  

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

and I don’t see any issues with nuances.  

Let's be honest.  The things I am pointing out are not just subtle nuances.  These are fairly substantive issues.  Try it out in your next Sunday school. Say out lout BY sinned over the race issues. Say D&C 132 is not scriptue and polygamy was wrong and a mistake.  Let's see how that goes over.

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

 

Everything has nuance, just many are left unspoken.

No everything does not have nuances.

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Now you are just playing at semantics.

Not at all. I may be using them differently than you or some others do, but I see my way as more precise, so I use it where needed. 
 

The Restored Gospel is a rather small set of doctrine in my view that pertains directly to the Atonement of Christ. The Church is the vehicle that currently carries this Gospel in its fullest form in mortality. Mormonism to me is all the baggage it has acquired, including culture and traditional interpretations that add to the core teachings as well as the Gospel and Church.
 

I am very grateful that my parents not only taught me their nuanced views while growing up, but also taught me about what nuance was and how to analyze my own and others’ beliefs rather than assuming I had it right from the beginning or that others believing differently than I didn’t have much to add to my faith and understanding of the Gospel.   I know quite a few who were raised with nuanced views, but fewer who even examined the what, why, and how of those nuances and the greater picture of faith in a positive way. I was very blessed. 
 

So it is not semantics to me, it is truth and reality and living faith and knowledge and has been for as long as I can remember thinking about such things, which is at least early teens and possibly even by ten years old. 

Edited October 1, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

“everything does not have nuances”

When one is being precise, all sorts of conditions can generally be applied to even simple statements of facts. When you look at personal experience as a whole, there will always be the internal and external experience, the physical and the mental, the spiritual and the secular, etc. 

Think of the simple act of measuring.  Nuances will be created by the method and tools used; the environmental conditions; the attention paid to the effort which is dependent on the measurer’s physical and mental state, the level of training they have.  Then one could add into the discussion the philosophical foundations behind the principles of measurement and why we believe it is even possible.

Now take a verbal construct…there is all the nuance provided by language which varies for each person due to their upbringing, education and training, experience. Each person will have a nuanced view of what is even the color that is the true red (especially if one doesn’t resort to using a scientific measurement, but go by eyeballing colors).  If one took a thousand different paint samples of colors that were within a certain range of 680 nanometers and a hundred people, would they all choose the same paint sample as “pure red”?  What if some viewed it outside in full sun and others inside at night under different light conditions?  
 

Precision requires nuance. 

Edited October 1, 2022 by Calm

[PeaceKeeper]

On 9/14/2022 at 8:59 AM, The_Monk said:

It's not a "boycott." It's a common-sense decision not to go on a show with a bad-faith narcissist hostile host whose only interest is encouraging dissent and controversy, because it pays his mortgage. 

Facts

[MrShorty]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well his flavor of Mormonism certainly is more appealing to me. And his approach.  But it just does not seem what Mormonism really is and what the doctrine being taught is.

I don't want to come off too contrary, because I understand the sentiment, but this particular heterodox Mormon gets really tired of people (from both sides) who claim to know what Mormonism really is and teaches. I get so tired of post-Mormons who try to tell me that the Church teaches X that I don't believe as if there is no nuance or variation in what good members believe. I also get tired when the orthodox (Pres. Oaks often comes to mind here) who claim that "Latter-day Saints believe that..." as if we all monolithically believe [blank]. I don't think we as a church are very good at sitting with and tolerating diversity of belief within our ranks, so we just don't know what to do with the heterodox. In some ways, I think this is a key issue that the church is still trying to figure out -- whether to "broaden it's stakes" to include heterodox beliefs, or to retrench and encourage the heterodox to quit halting between opinions and get out. I don't know what the church really wants with the heterodox, but I'm reminded of the anecdote involving a Bishop Woolley who said something to the effect that the church wasn't Brigham's church, it was his as well and he wasn't going to be pushed out just because he disagreed with the prophet on something or another.

[PeaceKeeper]

5 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I also get tired when the orthodox (Pres. Oaks often comes to mind here) who claim that "Latter-day Saints believe that..." as if we all monolithically believe [blank]. 

Sure he can't tell you you must believe the best Mexican food is in Tamaulipas, or the best beverage is an ice cold Horchata.

The First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 are "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive" (Eph 4:12-14).

They receive revelation for the Church body and so they do, doctrinally, have the final say of what the Church is to believe.

Again, "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive"

Also, Tamaulipas has the best tacos.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I don't want to come off too contrary, because I understand the sentiment, but this particular heterodox Mormon gets really tired of people (from both sides) who claim to know what Mormonism really is and teaches. I get so tired of post-Mormons who try to tell me that the Church teaches X that I don't believe as if there is no nuance or variation in what good members believe. I also get tired when the orthodox (Pres. Oaks often comes to mind here) who claim that "Latter-day Saints believe that..." as if we all monolithically believe [blank]. I don't think we as a church are very good at sitting with and tolerating diversity of belief within our ranks, so we just don't know what to do with the heterodox. In some ways, I think this is a key issue that the church is still trying to figure out -- whether to "broaden it's stakes" to include heterodox beliefs, or to retrench and encourage the heterodox to quit halting between opinions and get out. I don't know what the church really wants with the heterodox, but I'm reminded of the anecdote involving a Bishop Woolley who said something to the effect that the church wasn't Brigham's church, it was his as well and he wasn't going to be pushed out just because he disagreed with the prophet on something or another.

I think many of us just assume others think like us and ignore signs of variation of thought (and often nuances aren’t mentioned), so members’ views can often appear more monolithic than they actually are.  Most Saints will say “I believe the Book of Mormon is true” or some simple variation, but if someone asks “what do you mean by true?” and added numerous nitpicking questions dealing with minute details, we might be surprised by seeing all the various interpretations it never occurred to us were there because everyone assumed either agreement on the details or that they weren’t important even to care about.

I have run into enough situations where people who should understand each other because of being from the same environment  (were taught by same professors, lived in the same ward, or even grew up in the same family) still ran into major conflict because they had different expectations from the same conversation that I always assume now I am not understood and get surprised when it happens.

Edited October 2, 2022 by Calm

[Tacenda]

While watching Fox 13 Utah news the other night, they mentioned a segment that will be shown this Tuesday night with Patrick Mason on the problems members are having with the church, thought some of you would like to tune in. Wish I could remember exactly what they said about it, but probably worth a listen. 

[MrShorty]

15 hours ago, PeaceKeeper said:

They receive revelation for the Church body and so they do, doctrinally, have the final say of what the Church is to believe.

Sure. As I see some of the issues in our history and our beliefs in prophetic fallibility, any cohort of 15 apostles and prophets can declare what the church is to believe, but that declaration may or may not reflect God's Eternal Truths. Are we expected to just "determine to be loyal to the brethren" and keep our lack of testimony and disagreements quietly to ourselves (Pres. Oaks)? What are we supposed to do with the conflicts and alleged conflicts between our personal sense of right and wrong and what the Q15 declare?

[Rain]

9 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Sure. As I see some of the issues in our history and our beliefs in prophetic fallibility, any cohort of 15 apostles and prophets can declare what the church is to believe, but that declaration may or may not reflect God's Eternal Truths. Are we expected to just "determine to be loyal to the brethren" and keep our lack of testimony and disagreements quietly to ourselves (Pres. Oaks)? What are we supposed to do with the conflicts and alleged conflicts between our personal sense of right and wrong and what the Q15 declare?

I think one thing we need to be clear of in light of how I noticed something President Nelson said yesterday - I don't remember it specifically and will need to wait when it comes out.

There is a difference in receiving our own revelation from God and making up our own plan of what we should do.  Saying, "I don't like what the church says here. I will believe/do this instead" is different than sincerely trying to follow God and doing all you can to hear Him, being humble and willing to recognize you might be wrong and then do as you feel he directs you.

[PeaceKeeper]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

Sure. As I see some of the issues in our history and our beliefs in prophetic fallibility, any cohort of 15 apostles and prophets can declare what the church is to believe, but that declaration may or may not reflect God's Eternal Truths.

Are we expected to just "determine to be loyal to the brethren" and keep our lack of testimony and disagreements quietly to ourselves (Pres. Oaks)?

What are we supposed to do with the conflicts and alleged conflicts between our personal sense of right and wrong and what the Q15 declare?

I would say to your first portion that this is normally a problem with policy rather than canonical doctrine. 
 

we are supposed to walk by faith, shake off the natural man and become new creatures. How are we to do this with being uncomfortable? Distinguishing personal bias from personal revelation is difficult and we are always invited to challenge and ask. 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Sure. As I see some of the issues in our history and our beliefs in prophetic fallibility, any cohort of 15 apostles and prophets can declare what the church is to believe, but that declaration may or may not reflect God's Eternal Truths. Are we expected to just "determine to be loyal to the brethren" and keep our lack of testimony and disagreements quietly to ourselves (Pres. Oaks)? What are we supposed to do with the conflicts and alleged conflicts between our personal sense of right and wrong and what the Q15 declare?

I find it helpful, in connection with the two questions you pose, to recognize and not give place to the spirit of contention. This helps us recognize the operative word “alleged” in "alleged conflicts" quite early, prevent conflicts from forming and stay loyal to the brethren in the context I’m sure President Oaks taught (please provide the source for this quote since I’m biased). I think this approach balances the agency exercised in the variation of private belief (charitable tolerance) and the agency exercised to conform with the ordinances (charitable loyalty). In doing so, the process by which “the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have” becomes easier to accept. 

[MrShorty]

@CV75 The idea of loyalty superseding lack of testimony comes from the Be One Celebration in 2018, when Pres. Oaks said that he never received a testimony of the (now disavowed) reasons for the priesthood and temple ban, but he determined to be loyal to the brethren. I infer that this loyalty includes not speaking of one's lack of testimony because I am not aware of anything said by Pres. Oaks before '78 (or 2013 when the Race and the Priesthood essay came out or even 2018) expressing his lack of testimony. There's a lot that goes into the history of race and the priesthood, but it sure seems like there was very little tolerance for contrary opinions about racial issues during many of those years.

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

While watching Fox 13 Utah news the other night, they mentioned a segment that will be shown this Tuesday night with Patrick Mason on the problems members are having with the church, thought some of you would like to tune in. Wish I could remember exactly what they said about it, but probably worth a listen. 

Quoting myself to correct this post, just saw another ad about the upcoming segment. And it's about the attack on LDS culture from everywhere. 

[Teancum]

On 10/1/2022 at 5:56 PM, Calm said:

Not at all. I may be using them differently than you or some others do, but I see my way as more precise, so I use it where needed. 
 

The Restored Gospel is a rather small set of doctrine in my view that pertains directly to the Atonement of Christ. The Church is the vehicle that currently carries this Gospel in its fullest form in mortality. Mormonism to me is all the baggage it has acquired, including culture and traditional interpretations that add to the core teachings as well as the Gospel and Church.
 

I am very grateful that my parents not only taught me their nuanced views while growing up, but also taught me about what nuance was and how to analyze my own and others’ beliefs rather than assuming I had it right from the beginning or that others believing differently than I didn’t have much to add to my faith and understanding of the Gospel.   I know quite a few who were raised with nuanced views, but fewer who even examined the what, why, and how of those nuances and the greater picture of faith in a positive way. I was very blessed. 
 

So it is not semantics to me, it is truth and reality and living faith and knowledge and has been for as long as I can remember thinking about such things, which is at least early teens and possibly even by ten years old. 

Your are totally ignoring the points I have been making.  You like others have invented your own Mormonism, restored gospel, or whatever you want to call it. If it works for you more power to you but it is not the Mormonism the authorities teach.  Nor is Patrick Mason's.

[Teancum]

On 10/1/2022 at 10:30 PM, MrShorty said:

I don't want to come off too contrary, because I understand the sentiment, but this particular heterodox Mormon gets really tired of people (from both sides) who claim to know what Mormonism really is and teaches. I get so tired of post-Mormons who try to tell me that the Church teaches X that I don't believe as if there is no nuance or variation in what good members believe. I also get tired when the orthodox (Pres. Oaks often comes to mind here) who claim that "Latter-day Saints believe that..." as if we all monolithically believe [blank]. I don't think we as a church are very good at sitting with and tolerating diversity of belief within our ranks, so we just don't know what to do with the heterodox. In some ways, I think this is a key issue that the church is still trying to figure out -- whether to "broaden it's stakes" to include heterodox beliefs, or to retrench and encourage the heterodox to quit halting between opinions and get out. I don't know what the church really wants with the heterodox, but I'm reminded of the anecdote involving a Bishop Woolley who said something to the effect that the church wasn't Brigham's church, it was his as well and he wasn't going to be pushed out just because he disagreed with the prophet on something or another.

I understand your sentiments.  There was a time where it seemed the church and its leaders actually taught something that was considered doctrine and had a set of teachings and doctrine that seemed pretty solid.  Now it seems mysterious, not well know or defined and so on.  At least by many such as yourself perhaps?  Do you think the GAs have the same sentiments you reflect above?

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Sure. As I see some of the issues in our history and our beliefs in prophetic fallibility, any cohort of 15 apostles and prophets can declare what the church is to believe, but that declaration may or may not reflect God's Eternal Truths. Are we expected to just "determine to be loyal to the brethren" and keep our lack of testimony and disagreements quietly to ourselves (Pres. Oaks)? What are we supposed to do with the conflicts and alleged conflicts between our personal sense of right and wrong and what the Q15 declare?

So what do you make of this statement by Elder Renlund at GC this past weekend:

Quote

Third, personal revelation will be in harmony with the commandments of God and covenants made with Him. “When we ask for revelation about something God has already given clear direction, we open ourselves up to misinterpreting our feelings and hearing what we want to hear.” 

To me this says if you pray about something the leaders have already taught about you really don't need to and if you get a different answer you are likely wrong.

[Tacenda]

Here's a safer site for those that don't like the MS's site, with Patrick, if anyone is interested.

https://gospeltangents.com/2022/09/mormon-violence-peace/

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Your are totally ignoring the points I have been making.  You like others have invented your own Mormonism, restored gospel, or whatever you want to call it. If it works for you more power to you but it is not the Mormonism the authorities teach.  Nor is Patrick Mason's.

It seems like I've been seeing you saying this kind of thing a lot lately, and I do wonder if maybe you are so stuck in your previous views of "mormonism" that it's you who no longer recognizes the church and what it teaches, rather than the active and believing members who are the confused ones, with your perception of the church being the correct?

I know you've mentioned before that you can't let go of the way that things were taught in past decades, because those decades were your formative years (so to speak) in learning and living the gospel and so they are still very relevant to you.  I think that's a valid point, but I don't think it works to try to make that version of the church, the church.   Cal hasn't invented her own Mormonism.  She's just grown with the church, not in a different way than the church.

Her views look so different from the religion that you know because you haven't (for whatever reasons and I'm not saying this with any kind of judgment) done the same.

Edited October 3, 2022 by bluebell

[Teancum]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It seems like I've been seeing you saying this kind of thing a lot lately, and I do wonder if maybe you are so stuck in your previous views of "mormonism" that it's you who no longer recognizes the church and what it teaches, rather than the active and believing members who are the confused ones, with your perception of the church being the correct?

Could be. But I have not been out that long and I do keep up with what is happening and being said.  And I still socialize with a few active LDS friends.  But I am not out of the loop.

 

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I know you've mentioned before that you can't let go of the way that things were taught in past decades, because those decades were your formative years (so to speak) in learning and living the gospel and so they are still very relevant to you.  I think that's a valid point, but I don't think it works to try to make that version of the church, the church.   Cal hasn't invented her own Mormonism.  She's just grown with the church, not in a different way than the church.

Her views look so different from the religion that you know because you haven't (for whatever reasons and I'm not saying this with any kind of judgment) done the same.

So try the test i suggested to Cal. Bring up these non mainstream views at your local ward and see how people react to it.  And find where the GAs teach these "nuanced" views.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Could be. But I have not been out that long and I do keep up with what is happening and being said.  And I still socialize with a few active LDS friends.  But I am not out of the loop.

 

So try the test i suggested to Cal. Bring up these non mainstream views at your local ward and see how people react to it.  And find where the GAs teach these "nuanced" views.

I don't know how it is with the men, but these would not be considered "non mainstream" in my RS.  I have yet to meet a sister--who has shared her views very indepthly--where they were not nuanced.

[Teancum]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't know how it is with the men, but these would not be considered "non mainstream" in my RS.  I have yet to meet a sister--who has shared her views very indepthly--where they were not nuanced.

Can you provide specifics?